Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 03:58:13PM +, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
Does Module::Build do nested modules yet?
Dunno. Why is this relevant?
Because Tk:: and Audio:: (my two major XS modules on CPAN) are
both structured that way.
When Module::Build has
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 10:50:34AM +, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 03:58:13PM +, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
Does Module::Build do nested modules yet?
Dunno. Why is this relevant?
Because Tk:: and Audio:: (my two major
Nicholas Clark wrote:
I don't think that using make is not a problem at all is a valid argument.
ExtUtils::MakeMaker already jumps through a lot of hoops to (try to) make
portable makefiles. For example, we had a load of fun trying to work out
why SDBMFile broke on a MakeMaker change. It worked
On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 07:10:38PM +, Ed Avis wrote:
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003, Salvador Fandiño wrote:
Actually, most C/C++ developers should feel more comfortable using
and customizing ExtUtils::MakeMaker/make than Module::Build and not
because EU::MM has been there forever and M::B is new
On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 03:58:13PM +, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
Does Module::Build do nested modules yet?
Dunno. Why is this relevant?
--
Michael G Schwern[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/
The eye opening delightful morning taste of expired cheese bits in sour milk!
On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 02:04:56AM -0800, Salvador Fandiño wrote:
well, Module::Build biggest strength is that it?s a pure Perl module
that doesn't depend on an external tool like make but for C/C++
modules you will need a development environment anyway and using make
is not a problem at all.
From: Nick Ing-Simmons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 07:40:57PM +, Salvador Fandio wrote:
A new version of the C++ support for MakeMaker patch is ready.
The more I think about this the more nervous I get at putting
On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 02:04:56AM -0800, Salvador Fandiño wrote:
well, Module::Build biggest strength is that it?s a pure Perl module
that doesn't depend on an external tool like make but for C/C++
modules you will need a development environment anyway and using make
is not a problem at all.
On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 07:40:57PM +, Salvador Fandiño wrote:
A new version of the C++ support for MakeMaker patch is ready.
The more I think about this the more nervous I get at putting all this new
functionality into MakeMaker in a part that's not very well understood
(XS module building)
Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 07:40:57PM +, Salvador Fandio wrote:
A new version of the C++ support for MakeMaker patch is ready.
The more I think about this the more nervous I get at putting all this new
functionality into MakeMaker in a part that's not
Hi,
A new version of the C++ support for MakeMaker patch is ready.
It's available from here:
http://www.nondoc.org/perl/mm-cxx-0.11.patch.gz
And the full patched ExtUtil::MakeMaker package is here:
http://www.nondoc.org/perl/ExtUtils-MakeMaker-6.22_02.tar.gz
I have included most of the
Michael G Schwern wrote:
The major reason I've been avoiding putting any XS tests into MakeMaker
is being able to reliably determine if the user has a working compiler
and what that compiler is. Perl has it easy, the user obviously has a
C compiler, the one they're using to compile perl!
Rafael Garcia-Suarez [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Michael G Schwern wrote:
The major reason I've been avoiding putting any XS tests into MakeMaker
is being able to reliably determine if the user has a working compiler
and what that compiler is. Perl has it easy, the user obviously has a
C
Salvador Fandio [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
Now that 5.8.2 has been released, Michael G Schwern has accepted to
consider my patch to add support for C++ modules for inclusion on
MakeMaker but he has requested me to get it reviewed by somebody on
here first so...
A new version of the patch is
Hi,
Now that 5.8.2 has been released, Michael G Schwern has accepted to
consider my patch to add support for C++ modules for inclusion on
MakeMaker but he has requested me to get it reviewed by somebody on
here first so...
A new version of the patch is available from here:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 10:56:19AM +, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
The only reliable solution would be to include a C++ test module
and try to build and check it with different configurations until
one succeeds.
Certainly an option - perl has a XS test extension, we could
add a C++ test
Hi Michael,
--- Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 02:16:35AM -0800, Salvador Fandiño wrote:
Here is the patch for the current version of MakeMaker.
I have updated all the MM_* modules but only tested on Unix.
BTW, I believe there was a bug in the xs_c
On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 05:37:33AM -0800, Salvador Fandiño wrote:
Here is the patch for the current version of MakeMaker.
I have updated all the MM_* modules but only tested on Unix.
BTW, I believe there was a bug in the xs_c rule on MM_VMS.pm that
was
missing the .c
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 02:16:35AM -0800, Salvador Fandiño wrote:
Here is the patch for the current version of MakeMaker.
I have updated all the MM_* modules but only tested on Unix.
BTW, I believe there was a bug in the xs_c rule on MM_VMS.pm that was
missing the .c termination for the
19 matches
Mail list logo
